If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Show me in the Constitution where we are a theocracy. My whole argument. Short and sweet.

Show me an example ANYWHERE, where this Christian nation in over 200 years of Constitutional rule, has ever attempted to become a Theocracy.

Originally Posted by LukeEDay

Show me where it says the line 'Separation of church and state' in the constitution. Not some beating around the bush bs, the exact line 'Separation of church and state'...

Over 80% of the country is christian and feels the same way I do. You remaining 20% are out numbered.

It's a stupid argument. We have been majority Christian for over 200 years and still (until Chairman Maobama) have a Constitutional Republic. That little +80% majority must have missed their chance at hijacking the USA.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

Nova's argument boils down to two premises, that objection to homosexuality and gay marriage is based solely on religion, and is therefore religious discrimination, and that the failure to expand the definition to include gay marriage is discrimination. Let's address both.

Religious discrimination, as defined in the Constitution, is an official recognition of an establishment of religion. The cause of this was the religious conflicts in Europe prior to the American Revolution. Membership in the king's church became a de facto oath of loyalty, and membership in a competing church was therefore treason. It means that government cannot apply a religious test for citizenship or any right of citizenship. It does not mean that government must be blind to obvious factors of biology.

Marriage is not simply a religious rite, but an institution whose purpose is to establish a family structure that centuries of trial and error have demonstrated is the optimum environment for raising children. Other arrangements may substitute for this, but the primary indicators of stability are biological ties between parent and child. Adoptive parents may be as loving and nurturing, but casual hookups, boy or girlfriends or other non-stable relationships with a biological parent tend to carry much higher risks for dysfunction and abuse. Gay relationships, even so-called marriages, have much shorter durations and are far less likely to demonstrate the commitment seen in actual marriages. The advent of no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, birth control and a host of other attacks on sexual fidelity have done tremendous damage to marriage, and as a result, more marriages fail than used to be the case, but the imposition of further stresses on marriage is not the answer, it's just more of the same problem. As previously stated, leftists have always seen the family as a bulwark against their agenda. Stable families don't require welfare states. Stable families don't want or need an intrusive social service apparatus. Stable families need government to protect their rights, not do dictate them. In a free society, the compelling state interest is to encourage family formation and stability. If others wish to form attachments outside of that, that is not the business of the state, but it is also not the business of the state to encourage or sanction such couplings. Whether that hurts the feelings of a particular minority is not a compelling state interest.